Hurricanes, press conferences, biology and other musings on human nature

We...you and I...are cells. millions upon billions of cells. From the very tips of the hair on my head to the nerve endings in my toes, I am one huge conflagration of cells. Some of my cells have blinders on--they do one thing very well over and over again. Other cells are are good multitaskers and generalists--they are the infantry of my body's army in the war against entropy. These cells that make up my body (and yours too) work in harmony (if we're healthy) to harness, modify, collect, and skillfully use energy in an effort to keep me alive...but me isn't a separate entity...me is all of these cells and something else human beings call a soul/mind.

Now, everything except the soul/mind part of the equation we know and have learned much about through science (even though there are a lot of scientists who believe, propound, and wonder about the soul/mind part and there is plenty we do know that comes to us from the humanities and liberal arts). As far as I know, the beauty of the scientific method, generally speaking, is that objective thought, experimentation, logic, and mathematics are combined with accumulated wisdom and knowledge(i.e.: other proven discoveries, collected data, etc.) to discover things that we don't know. Otherwise, the only other way I know to discover something--in order to solve a problem or enhance quality of life--falls into one of two basic categories with some rare exceptions: 1.) happenstance or mistake and 2.) trial and error.

The obvious problem with the latter two "methods of discovery"--especially when they have to do with solving real socially, environmentally, or politically motivated questions that will affect people's lives is that they either don't produce results on a timetable that helps society in its times of need or they result in too high a tradeoff of some other valuable resource (like wasted money, endangered human lives, or environmental degradation). This is especially true when you are working to solve natural disasters that strike suddenly and catch us unprepared--Hurricane Katrina, for example.

So what, might you ask, does the beautiful objectivity of scientific method have to do directly with Hurricane Katrina after the fact? Why do I even bother to point out something so obvious and so seemingly irrelevant at this point--post Katrina?

The answer is this:

Scientific method involves starting from the premise that you cannot hypothesize, base decisions, propose solutions or test solutions on what you don't know or have not yet proven. Scientific method or the kind of objective process it promotes protects us against making assumptions or jumping to conclusions before considering all the facts--facts being truths that we know for certain because we have proven them to be true. Scientific method says, conceptually, "There is much that we don't know...perhaps more that we don't know or don't understand than what we do know or do understand. In fact, the body of things we encounter in the world that we don't understand is probably far greater than the body of things and phenomenon we do understand and will be so for a very, very long time if not forever."

This sounds matter of fact, mundane, obvious--almost like a truism. But the best rules in life are the simple ones, even if anecdotal:

Don't count your chickens before they hatch.
Treat others as you would have them treat you.
Say what you mean, and mean what you say.

Or, one of my favorites (though not as well known perhaps):
The problem is not that there are problems. The problem is expecting otherwise and thinking that having problems is a problem.

The basic message we encounter here, over and over again, is: Not knowing or not having the answers is not a problem. In fact, being honest (with yourself and the people around you) about not knowing or not having the facts is not only fair but the best way to begin solving the problem or making a discovery necessary to solving the problem. The danger is that if all you know about a problem or question that needs resolution is the negative effects of not having resolved it than you encounter that other thing that scientific method hasn't yet fully explained: the soul/mind. The soul/mind gets emotional really easily--especially when you get many thousand soul/minds focused on the same extreme situation. Human behavior is contagious--this is true both when the behavior is driven by happiness or by fear.

The last week of post-katrina craziness has been characterized by a lot of contagious behavior--the lion's share of it driven by a frantic media blitz of the negative consequences and developments of the hurricane's aftermath. This is all accentuated by the lack of coherent leadership at almost all levels--there is no single voice saying:

"Here is what we know. Here is what we do not know (or what we are not capable of knowing for some time). Based on what we do know we can hypothesize that certain other problems have arisen, that they will and are having any number of effects (of which we are not yet fully aware), and that we can do these things to stop some of them from continuing to happen right now. We will do these things. Because we don't know everything, haven't planned well enough, and haven't not yet discovered how to solve or fix certain other of these problems we need everyone's patience, support, assistance, and self sacrifice in this time of need and loss. We need everyone's help and patience because we are not in full control and do not have all of the answers, but we will, as quickly as humanly possible, fix or eliminate the problems and halt the disaster. Furthermore, as Americans we have consistently solved problems, stopped disasters, and made a better course for our collective human future by working hard, self-sacrificing, respecting each other, and valuing calm, enthusiastic, and--above all else--positive leadership."

What we have instead is many competing voices (not just the ones in government) speaking many different messages in primarily two, unhealthy tones:

1.) The "we-know-everything-there-is-to-know-trust-us-we-are-doing-everything-possible-the-people-on-the-ground-are-doing-a-superb-job" technique causes people to take on the very dangerous notion that their leaders know everything and are in complete control (which backfires later fueling fear and destroying credibility when something reveals how little they control or how little they actually know).

2.) The "blame game" strategy involves careful deflection of responsibillity, alot of sensationalism, and allowing a fidgety press corps and media frenzy to corner you into answering inopportune, leading questions that force you to point fingers at other levels or departments of government because it keeps people glued to TV screens.

If we return to the premise of objectivity that we get from my crude interpretation of the scientific method and the rather tenuous way I have connected it to successful leadership, then the first of these two existing styles of "leadership" is the most damaging--at least in my opinion. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see through the blame game strategy after it fails the first time or even while its happening (people who point fingers before fixing problems or who get emotional or sensational are not convincing)...but the "we-know-it-all-trust-us..." strategy is far more subtle and unhealthy for the people believing it. To make matters worse, many of our current leaders have mastered using both of these techniques dovetailed together. In fact, they have gotten so good at it that they can use the blame game strategy to cover up the moment when it becomes clear they didn't know everything and weren't in control.

Whereas if they had just been upfront about what they really knew, how much control they had, and then topped it off with a good dose of "we are going to regain control and fix the problem and to do it we need everyone's help" most people would have not only trusted them but been devoted to sacrificing and assiting in anyway possible. This is evidenced enough by the fact that the public has already sacrificed, volunteered, and contributed to the relief of post-katrina Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama given the lack of coherent leadership. It goes to show that no matter how much humans know or control, working together based on what they do know and can control is much better than working from what you cannot even predict--especially when all the parties involved are honest about what they know and can do.

It would be convenient to compare cells to people if only we worked as harmoniously as our microscopic, constituents did...maybe the allusion to the cells of a body is more valuable as a mixed metaphor...but then again what do I know?..what do any of us really know?